Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Frank C. Worrell, Dante D. Dixson Pages: 79 - 81 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 79-81, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Joni M. Lakin, Jonathan Wai Pages: 95 - 97 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 95-97, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Russell T. Warne Pages: 98 - 100 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 98-100, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Matthew C. Makel Pages: 101 - 102 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 101-102, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Daniel A. Long Pages: 105 - 107 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 105-107, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:April Wells, Jonathan A. Plucker Pages: 108 - 109 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 108-109, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kristen N. Lamb, Jennifer L. Jolly, Joni M. Lakin Pages: 113 - 115 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 113-115, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:La’Tonya Frazier-Goatley, Jill L. Adelson, Kate E. Snyder Pages: 116 - 118 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 116-118, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Keishana L. Barnes Pages: 119 - 120 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 119-120, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Thomas S. Greenspon Pages: 124 - 125 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 124-125, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Nancy B. Hertzog Pages: 126 - 127 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 126-127, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Angela M. Novak Pages: 128 - 129 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 128-129, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Gilman W. Whiting Pages: 132 - 133 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 132-133, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Hope E. Wilson Pages: 134 - 135 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 134-135, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jemimah L. Young, Jamaal Young Pages: 136 - 138 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 136-138, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:David P. Walrod Pages: 142 - 143 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 142-143, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jennifer L. Jolly Pages: 146 - 148 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 146-148, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jae Yup Jung, Rahmi Luke Jackson, Geraldine Townend, Marie McGregor Pages: 149 - 151 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 149-151, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Robert J. Sternberg Pages: 159 - 160 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 159-160, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Michael S. Matthews, Jennifer H. Robins Pages: 161 - 162 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 161-162, April 2022.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Carolyn M. Callahan, Amy Azano, Sunhee Park, Annalissa V. Brodersen, Melanie Caughey, Svetlana Dmitrieva Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. Analysis of assessment data from an initial pool of second-grade students (n = 4549) in low-income rural communities and a subgroup of students identified from that pool for gifted services (n = 524) provided evidence for the validity of a curricular-aligned process including universal screening and local norms for identifying rural students in high-poverty schools as gifted. We first compared identification data on a group identified with existing, more general identification strategies to data on students identified specifically in language arts using universal screening and local norms as part of the identification criteria, providing staff development focused on indicators of rural giftedness prior to teacher ratings of students, and using a profile in decision making. This comparison confirmed the hypothesis that talent in rural students from low-income areas may manifest in ways that are not captured by more generic identification processes. Despite concerns about the implementation of identification processes using local norms, students identified through the project’s alternative approach scored higher on a measure of verbal aptitude and scored as well on postintervention assessments as students identified using the district-identification process. This outcome provides evidence that students identified with local norms in a specific academic domain reach similar or higher levels of achievement as students identified using national norms and more general means of assessment. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2022-03-12T06:38:19Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862221082064
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jaret Hodges, Mary Simonsen, Jessica Ottwein Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. Social media continues to be an ever-present part of people’s lives. One of the largest social media websites, Reddit has more than 430 million unique visitors monthly. What is unknown to scholars is how gifted education fits into this modern form of communication. In our research, we examined how gifted education is discussed over Reddit using text mining in combination with sentiment analysis. In addition, our research conditioned sentiment on variables such as self-disclosure, interest, and controversy. We found that, overall, discussion of giftedness was neutral in terms of sentiment and used common language across subreddits. We also found that the language used and distribution of sentiment were similar between self-disclosures and non-self-disclosures. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2022-02-09T09:54:31Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862221076403
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Michiel Boncquet, Jeroen Lavrijsen, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Karine Verschueren, Bart Soenens First page: 220 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. Although it has been hypothesized that gifted students are at risk for adopting a fixed mind-set, research revealed inconsistent results. We aimed to clarify this by differentiating between two operationalizations of giftedness (high cognitive ability and formal identification as gifted) and how these relate to students’ beliefs about intelligence and effort. Also, we examined the role of parental antecedents on students’ beliefs. Participants were 3,329 seventh-grade students and their parents. Only being labeled as gifted was related to adopting a fixed mind-set. Regarding parental antecedents, parents’ intelligence and effort beliefs were related to students’ corresponding beliefs. Furthermore, parental feedback was associated with students’ beliefs, which was most pronounced when student-reports of feedback were used. In particular, person-oriented feedback related positively to a fixed mind-set and negatively to students’ appreciation of the role of effort in academic performance, while process-oriented feedback showed the opposite pattern. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2022-04-02T09:23:58Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862221084238
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Sema Tan Pages: 157 - 158 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 2, Page 157-158, April 2022. Turkey adopts a single-state (centralized/unitary) system that results in following the same identification procedures and providing similar service delivery options for the entire country. At first glance, this might seem like a fair way to achieve equity within public school gifted programs. However, a close look at this system reveals several handicaps such as implementing the same teacher training program for all teacher candidates, ignoring the unequal opportunities provided in the most (İstanbul) and least (Şırnak) economically developed cities, and the accessibility of services delivered to gifted students. Turkey has paid much attention to the education of the gifted and taken several important steps for improvement in the last three decades. However, a need for bigger changes to achieve equity in gifted education is clear. With a careful planning and implementation, appropriate changes might pave the way for gifted students to access more equal opportunities to fulfill their potential. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-08-21T04:53:08Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211040523 Issue No:Vol. 66, No. 2 (2021)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Selcuk Acar, Kelly Berthiaume, Katalin Grajzel, Denis Dumas, Charles “Tedd” Flemister, Peter Organisciak Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. In this study, we applied different text-mining methods to the originality scoring of the Unusual Uses Test (UUT) and Just Suppose Test (JST) from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)–Verbal. Responses from 102 and 123 participants who completed Form A and Form B, respectively, were scored using three different text-mining methods. The validity of these scoring methods was tested against TTCT’s manual-based scoring and a subjective snapshot scoring method. Results indicated that text-mining systems are applicable to both UUT and JST items across both forms and students’ performance on those items can predict total originality and creativity scores across all six tasks in the TTCT-Verbal. Comparatively, the text-mining methods worked better for UUT than JST. Of the three text-mining models we tested, the Global Vectors for Word Representation (GLoVe) model produced the most reliable and valid scores. These findings indicate that creativity assessment can be done quickly and at a lower cost using text-mining approaches. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-12-18T06:10:05Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211061874
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Nicholas W. Gelbar, Alexandra A. Cascio, Joseph W. Madaus, Sally M. Reis Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. This article includes a current research synthesis on a subpopulation of twice exceptional individuals, those who are academically talented with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This population is emerging as an increasing focus of research, as the numbers of individuals identified are increasing. A total of 32 articles were included using the study’s inclusion criteria, and of these 32 articles, 62.5% presented data, whereas the remaining 37.5% were review or conceptual articles. This review of articles published between 1996 and 2019 suggests little research is being conducted on this population. Some of the research conducted recently involve case studies, others are correlational in nature, and most are descriptive, focusing on participants’ characteristics and how they were identified. A wide range of definitions were utilized in the literature, and to date, no empirical research has been published about this population. Implications from the current research base and suggestions for future research are included. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-12-17T11:08:27Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211061876
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Scott J. Peters First page: 82 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. K–12 gifted and talented programs have struggled with racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, native language, and disability inequity since their inception. This inequity has been well documented in public schools since at least the 1970s and has been stubbornly persistent despite receiving substantial attention at conferences, in scholarly journals, and in K–12 schools. The purpose of this article is to outline why such inequity exists and why common efforts to combat it have been unsuccessful. In the end, poorly designed identification systems combined with larger issues of societal inequality and systemic, institutionalized racism are the most likely culprits. I end the article with a hierarchy of actions that could be taken—from low-hanging fruit to major societal changes—in order to combat inequity in gifted education and move the field forward. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-03-26T01:15:23Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211002535
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Scott J. Peters First page: 163 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print.
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:C. Owen Lo, Shun-Fu Hu, Hasan Sungur, Ching-Hui Lin First page: 171 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. In a recent position statement, the National Association of Gifted Children argued the importance of providing equitable treatment of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and other sexual and gender minority individuals (LGBTQ+) gifted youth to help them maximize their potential. However, there are very few empirical studies focusing on the intersection of giftedness and gender identities. Little is known regarding these students’ experience at, and outside of, school. Focusing on the individual process of gender identity development and self-acceptance, we interviewed nine LGBTQ+ postsecondary students in North America (aged between 19 and 29 years) who are graduates of an academically focused high school in Turkey. In particular, we studied their ways of thinking, stress coping strategies, and environmental factors that may have enabled their self-acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities. Findings of the study show that the mental health of LGBTQ+ is a function of individual factors (e.g., coping strategies), structural factors (e.g., a homophobic sociocultural environment), and the context. The findings also indicate the benefits of complexity and reflectiveness in thinking, metacognition and the ability to separate identity labels from identities, enabled by high school peer support, liberal curriculum and classroom discussions, and access to information during adolescence. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-07-13T06:07:54Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211029681
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Trent N. Cash, Tzu-Jung Lin First page: 188 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. This study examined the psychological well-being of students enrolled in two gifted programs with different service delivery models. Participants were 292 fifth- and sixth-grade students (Mage = 11.70, SDage = 0.65) enrolled in a gifted math pull-out program (n = 103), a self-contained gifted program (n = 90), or a program providing no gifted services, which served as a control group (n = 99). Multiple differences in psychological well-being across programs were revealed in Hierarchical Linear Models, particularly in terms of math self-concept, loneliness, and maladaptive perfectionism. Students in the two gifted programs reported different patterns of psychological well-being when compared with students in the no gifted services control group. These differences suggest distinct social phenomena underlying the two different service delivery models. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-07-21T12:00:48Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211032987
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Cesare Cornoldi, David Giofrè, Irene Cristina Mammarella, Enrico Toffalini First page: 208 Abstract: Gifted Child Quarterly, Ahead of Print. Whether intellectually gifted children have a greater emotional response when tested is still unclear. This may be due to the marked heterogeneity of this particular population, and the fact that most studies lack the power to reduce the noise associated with this heterogeneity. The present study examined the relationship between performance and emotional response in 468,423 Italian fifth-graders taking a national test on mathematics and language. Analyses were performed using statistical models with polynomial terms. Special attention was paid to estimating the mean emotional response of the children who were gifted (1.5-2.5 standard deviations above the mean) or highly gifted (more than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean). The results showed that, although a lower emotional response correlated with a higher achievement, this relationship is nonlinear, and the estimates for gifted and highly gifted children were virtually the same. Girls showed a greater emotional response than boys on all levels of performance. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. Citation: Gifted Child Quarterly PubDate: 2021-09-03T06:36:14Z DOI: 10.1177/00169862211042901
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[1174 journals]
